Effect of different intraoral scanning strategies on the marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay restorations: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Whether the scanning strategy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) affects the accuracy of the digital recording for an indirect ceramic inlay restoration is unclear. Furthermore, which strategy would be optimal and most effective is uncertain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of 3 different scanning strategies using the Carestream CS 3700 IOS on the marginal and internal fit of a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) ceramic inlay restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A typodont master model (ANA-4 VCER; Frasaco) was used with a standardized preprepared MOD inlay maxillary first molar typodont tooth (ANA-4 ZP16 CER99-008; Frasaco) (N=30). These inlay preparations were scanned with the CS 3700 IOS using 3 different scanning strategies: linear, wave, and S-figure scanning strategies. Each scan strategy group was scanned 10 times for all groups to obtain 30 standard tessellation language (STL) files. Thirty restorations were milled from lithium disilicate CAD blocks (IPS e.max; Ivoclar AG) and cemented into their typodont-prepared inlay cavities. A single examiner used a stereomicroscope to measure the marginal and internal gaps at the predetermined points. A 1-way ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis, followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment. All tests were 2-tailed (α=.05). RESULTS: All scanning strategy groups demonstrated statistically significant differences for the marginal and internal fit of the inlay restorations (P<.001). Overall, the linear scanning strategy showed the lowest mean marginal and internal gap values (29.2 ±3.6 µm and 39.0 ±6.4 µm), followed by the wave scanning strategy, which had comparable mean marginal and internal gap values: 49.1 ±3.6 µm and 48.2 ±6.0 µm, respectively. The S-figure scan strategy had the highest mean marginal and internal gap values: 50.2 ±12.6 µm and 71.3 ±7.7 µm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay restorations scanned by the linear scan strategy had the best marginal and internal fit when scanned with the CS 3700 IOS.

Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Proper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth by applying sectional matrix system along with different contact forming instruments. METHODS: 72 direct compound class II composite restorations were performed in patients aged 18-40 years and divided into 4 groups: Group I (n = 18): proximal contact was restored with Palodent plus sectional matrix system, Group II (n = 18): Trimax as contact forming instrument, Group III (n = 18): Perform as contact forming instrument and Group IV (n = 18): Contact pro as contact forming instrument. All contact forming instruments were used along with Palodent plus matrix system. PCT was measured using a digital force gauge before (T0), immediate post operative (T1) and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after restorative treatment. Using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, and Bonferroni correction, PCT values were compared between groups before and after the intervention restoration. Meanwhile, for comparisons within groups, a paired t-test was conducted (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Contact forming instruments combined with Palodent plus sectional matrix system achieved better PCT. Trimax led to a statistically considerable tighter proximal contacts than the other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in PCT between Contact pro-2, Perform and Palodent plus sectional matrix system. By means of multivariate analysis, the PCT between both T0 and T1 were increased (p < 0.001) and then it decreased till T5. CONCLUSIONS: The use of transparent contact forming instruments achieved greater PCT compared to Palodent sectional matrix system alone that gradually decreased throughout 12 months and reached the PCT between the natural teeth. Using Trimax system provided the tightest proximal contacts. Additionally, digital force gauge was confirmed as an inclusive and accurate method to quantify PCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05749640: 24/5/2022.